Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 255 posts

Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science

#171

Post by lost_tourist »

primer42 wrote: post #8
GlumWoodpecker wrote: post #5

Powerful article. What strikes me as a layman (non-lawyer, non-law enforcement), is how prevalent these methods of forensic science have become, without any solid scientific basis backing them up - such as peer reviewed studies with quantifiable evidence. You'd think that in order for the state to take the life of a human being, you'd need to prove it using means that are more thoroughly vetted than "[one doctor] who…

IMHO our system of law cares more about precedent than almost anything else. The first case addressing a situation sets the bar, which is backwards. The most important decisions are made when we, collectively, know least about the topic at hand.

I think that may have been true in the past but recent cases in front of the SCOTUS is setting precedent that stare decisis (and other forms of precedence) doesn't matter much any longer in the US court system.

Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science

#172

Post by Yoric »

beerandt wrote: post #128
lisper wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Shaken Baby Syndrome is a real thing. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/shaken-baby-s... [UPDATE] To those of you downvoting me, would you kindly explain why? It seems like a reasonable question to me.

It is, but those claiming psedoscience aren't even claiming that the set of symptoms aren't "real", just that they don't deserve their own label because of the implication. "We can't explain this trio of internal head/brain/eye trauma with lack of corresponding external trauma, but don't you dare make the reasonable claim that shaking a baby can/does nominally cause the symptoms we see when a baby is, in fact, shaken…

My understanding is that you got it backwards.

As far as I understand, the claim is that internal head/brain/eye trauma can have many causes, so these symptoms do not automatically mean that the baby was necessarily shaken. Sadly, this combination of symptoms have been named "Shaken Baby Syndrome", which means that people naturally assume that the baby has been shaken, which is apparently a crime in Texas.

Had this same syndrome been named "Guthkelch Syndrome", or anything else, the man currently on death row might have been deemed innocent.

I, for one, find this scary. Just as (in a very different domain) the "movie piracy == slavery" equation I've seen float in Blockbusters many years ago. When people who don't know better start believing in names/PR/..., this can have very real (in this case, deadly) consequences.

Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science

#174

Post by lost_tourist »

vorpalhex wrote: post #35
GlumWoodpecker wrote: post #5

Powerful article. What strikes me as a layman (non-lawyer, non-law enforcement), is how prevalent these methods of forensic science have become, without any solid scientific basis backing them up - such as peer reviewed studies with quantifiable evidence. You'd think that in order for the state to take the life of a human being, you'd need to prove it using means that are more thoroughly vetted than "[one doctor] who…

SBS is well supported by the medical literature and extensive studies: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25616019/ (an overview) This man was not committed to death row because of one doctor. He was found guilty because multiple people in his life testified he had a history of violently shaking and screaming at a child for crying.

Not any longer, pediatric scientists/doctors are the last hold outs (most likely because they will have to eat some crow over it), others have considered it as debunked as junk science, making it highly questionable.

Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science

#175

Post by Aeolun »

hirundo wrote: post #49
ceejayoz wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. Known as the CSI effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect

I was on a jury last month, an assault and battery case in which the identification of the rusty-colored substance on the grip of a handgun could easily make a big difference. We convicted on the assault and acquitted on the battery because of the lack of the evidence, though I think most of us thought the defendant was guilty of both. This was the second try at this case after a prior jury hung, but the two years be…

If two years is not enough lead time someone is not doing their job.

Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science

#176

Post by _8j50 »

Hear me out, capital punishment should be allowed but the execution of each inmate should depend on a referendum at the polls.

For example, new highway spending, municipal bond issuance and other stuff gets put on the ballot. Consent to take the life of a person who has committed capital crimes should be directly granted by the people. Advocates for the inmate can campaign for leniency but voters must vote assuming guilt since the inmate is already convicted. Lack of turnout or refusal to grant consent means the inmate gets life without parole.

There aren't enough executions for this to be an issue and a person's life shouldn't depend on legalist bureaucrats.

Also, a guilty verdict alone shouldn't be enough to put their name on that ballot. Overwhelming evidence needs to be present.

Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science

#177

Post by UncleMeat »

dsego wrote: post #84
spamizbad wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because the purpose of the death penalty is to function as a sort of secular human sacrifice, to ward off evil-doers possibly doing bad things, due to a belief that deep down bad guys are rational actors and will choose not to do commit capital murder based on punishment.

It's retributive justice, it's not a deterrent. To quote a post I recently found resonating with me: "Look, we don’t necessarily hang murderers to deter other people from committing the same offence. We kill them simply because the punishment has to carry the same weight as the offence. The family of the murderer must go through the same anguish and pain that the murder victim’s family went through. The killer has to…

And I think that this is bloodthirsty evil.

Sure, the author wrote why they believe what they do. That's not itself evidence that they are right in their beliefs.

Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science

#178

Post by VHRanger »

lisper wrote: post #148
rossant wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shaking and child abuse are obviously real things. However, the way to diagnose shaken baby syndrome has been the subject of an ongoing scientific controversy for decades. With several colleagues, we have just published a textbook about this sensitive issue [1]. I've also written about how I, as a neuroscience researcher and software engineer, came into this diagnosis [2]. Finally, an introduction to this fascinating…

OK, but that still doesn't explain the connection between SBS and hypnosis (and Texas for that matter). Is there a particular history of using hypnosis to convict innocent people of shaking babies to death in Texas and impose the death penalty on them? Is this common knowledge? The original comment to which I was responding still makes absolutely no sense to me. And getting downvoted because I asked for clarification…

You were downvoted because your comment showed you didn't read the OP article, which answers your question thoroughly

Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science

#179

Post by adfgiionio »

kmeisthax wrote: post #142
Grimburger wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The closed source DNA testing code used daily just raises so many red flags. It's honestly concerning how basically no one in the legal community understands why this is an issue. This stuff is way too important to be proprietary.

Wanting to weaken or abolish any kind of property right - even the non-naturally-derived government-granted monopoly bargains that form copyright, patent, and trade secrecy - makes you extremely fringe in the legal profession. If you want to be a competent and successful lawyer while holding those opinions you have to firewall half your brain off from the other half. Partially because fringe people who want to change…

Who said anything about the state claiming ownership of this software? That's a huge leap of logic. We are talking about removing the state's power to use secret software at trial. This is a restriction on the government, not on the software authors. The authors have the right to write whatever software they want. They have no right to have the government use their software at trial.

We have pretty good proposals to deal with this problem. I think the following seems sensible:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4368

>Partially because fringe people who want to change the law make terrible legal arguments

No one has ever changed the law to benefit the rich, no sirree.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/To...

It is our current system that is fringe. Copyright is practically permanent when compared to a fleeting human lifespan. Even when copyrights eventually expire, trademarks function as "a species of mutant copyright" to keep works protected forever. Companies like Disney profit off our shared heritage and then lock it in their "Vault" forever. The way human culture has worked for hundreds of thousands of years has been derailed within just the last few generations.

Radical changes to line the pockets of the owning class are sensible and legal and moderate, but wanting even the smallest change to prevent the slaughter of innocents by the Abbott regime is fringe.

Note that I don't necessarily disagree with you that reformers often make bad legal arguments. Making good legal arguments requires good lawyers, and only the rich can afford good lawyers.

Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science

#180

Post by UncleMeat »

epicureanideal wrote: post #69
qingcharles wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's often very, very, very hard to introduce new evidence of your innocence after trial. Trial is the point that you show all available evidence to the jury. In Illinois you can attempt to present your evidence only after you have exhausted all of your regular appeal routes (appellate court, state supreme court, SCOTUS, state habeas corpus, fed habeas -- there are 11 levels here first) which can take a decade.…

I'm completely shocked that the "defund the police" movement was where the progressive activists chose to dedicate their attention. Whereas issues like you mention above, and trial reform in general, and prison system reform in general, would have wide bipartisan support. It really makes me suspicious why activists and the media are not advocating for the things 90% of people would agree with. Is the other stuff just…

> trial reform in general, and prison system reform in general, would have wide bipartisan support.

They absolutely do not. You can see the split clearly in court decisions regarding the criminal justice system.

Post reply on HN